Abstract

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

De Facto Witness Tampering

De facto witness tampering matters because it fuels increased victim disengagement and danger, and its omission from discourse animates much regressive case law. Although present statutes address the most virulent and direct manifestations of witness tampering (WT), they miss the nuanced, less overt, but still dangerous conduct that achieves the same unlawful ends. Many perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) and human trafficking (HT) are exceptionally resourceful in their efforts to prevent victims from testifying against them, necessitating the expansion of remedial statutory schemes to recognize de facto witness tampering.

After briefly examining the doctrinal and normative aspects of de facto witness tampering, the Article describes the concept in practice, including tipping point tampering such as victim grooming, financial sabotage, and cyber harassment. Integration of human rights doctrine must be part of instrumental reform as criminalization of de facto WT comports with internationally recognized norms of state obligations to victims of gendered violence. Because IPV-HT offenders are not likely to admit their intent to silence witnesses, it is necessary to promulgate a presumptive intent standard that focuses on result. To that end, I propose a rebuttable presumption of intent to silence a victim when a court finds that a person committed an IPV-HT act as part of pattern of coercive control. The Rule of Law maxim must mean that abuse survivors’ civil and human rights are protected by criminalizing the full scope of WT conduct.